"I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." ~ C. S. Lewis (Yes, even politics)

In loving memory of Mr. Z

Monday, July 22, 2013

Men and Fidelity

"Men are only as faithful as their options."

No, I don't usually take Chris Rock quotes too seriously, but I heard that and thought it interesting. Do you think that's true? I thought we could use a change of scenery around here... just one day: tomorrow's hard hitting politics again. Is Rock right? Let's talk!

I think it's fidelity, even through the difficult times, that makes marriage worthwhile.......that amazing feeling of having done the right thing though tempted.

I had a couple of very interesting men come after me during my marriage, I have to admit; and I never took them up on it, and I felt like I had a marvelous, proud secret from Mr. Z. He didn't know, but I KNEW.

Whether it be man OR woman, fidelity CAN be merely a matter of opportunities, but it doesn't HAVE to be that way.

Take Shakespeare's "Othello" as it relates to the relationship between Othello and Iago. "Why" does Iago plot to destroy Othello's marriage? I think it well stated at the play's outset:

RODERIGO

Thou told'st me thou didst hold him in thy hate.

IAGO

Despise me, if I do not. Three great ones of the city, In personal suit to make me his lieutenant, Off-capp'd to him: and, by the faith of man, I know my price, I am worth no worse a place: But he; as loving his own pride and purposes, Evades them, with a bombast circumstance Horribly stuff'd with epithets of war; And, in conclusion, Nonsuits my mediators; for, 'Certes,' says he, 'I have already chose my officer.' And what was he? Forsooth, a great arithmetician, One Michael Cassio, a Florentine, A fellow almost damn'd in a fair wife; That never set a squadron in the field, Nor the division of a battle knows More than a spinster; unless the bookish theoric, Wherein the toged consuls can propose As masterly as he: mere prattle, without practise, Is all his soldiership. But he, sir, had the election: And I, of whom his eyes had seen the proof At Rhodes, at Cyprus and on other grounds Christian and heathen, must be be-lee'd and calm'd By debitor and creditor: this counter-caster, He, in good time, must his lieutenant be, And I--God bless the mark!--his Moorship's ancient.

RODERIGO

By heaven, I rather would have been his hangman.

IAGO

Why, there's no remedy; 'tis the curse of service, Preferment goes by letter and affection, And not by old gradation, where each second Stood heir to the first. Now, sir, be judge yourself, Whether I in any just term am affined To love the Moor.

Iago was the "faithful" and experienced subaltern passed over ofr a "college boy"

...and so we often wonder "why" so many blacks do not "see" the "justice" in the Zimmerman trial. Perhaps they, like "Iago" do not view the "law" in the same way we do, do not make the "Oedipal" leaps in thinking that envison an advantageous "return" offered in its' adherence, but instead see only the "impediment" it represents in the satisfaction of its' "desires".

But, there is a twist. The liberating aspect of law is both a “symptom” and implicated in yet another set of arbitrary, punishing demands, those of the superego. First, the image of the omnipotent Other to whose whim one is subject is a fantasy. It is a way for the subject to avoid acknowledging that its desire can’t be satisfied, to avoid facing the fact that the Other doesn’t have the ability to give it what it wants. In Hobbes' state of nature, it simply is not the case that one could have everything one desired were it not for the rights of others. As Hobbes acknowledges, desire is itself always in motion, ceaseless, beyond satisfaction. Law intervenes, then, as “a way for the subject to avoid the impasse constitutive of desire by transforming the inherent impossibility of its satisfaction into prohibition: as if desire would be possible to fulfil if it were not for the prohibition impeding its free reign.” The sovereign (for Hobbes) guarantees desire not simply by restraining others but by commanding restraint in general. Law lets the subject think it could get what it wants were it not for law’s prohibition. So, here law lets the subject avoid the impossible Real of its desire. Our attachment to law, then, is a symptom in that it is a way for us to secure our desire (that is to say, the space for it, not the object of it) by avoiding confrontation with the impossibility of fulfilling it.

What really binds a community, what really tells people that they are members of the same group is not their knowing what laws to follow but their knowing what laws to break. Attachment to community comes about through identification with the suspension or transgression of the law.

I agree with Kurt -- especially the way society has evolved in the past fifty years. Women today are just as apt to be promiscuous, unwilling to commit and to postpone taking on the responsibilities of marriage and children indefinitely as men have generally been thought to be.

I, personally, think it depends a great deal on the individual. Some people are constituted to have and to hold a loved one till death does them part, many can't begin even to consider putting themselves in such a situation.

I know, as much as any one of can know such a thing, that my father was absolutely faithful to my mother, and she to him. I also know, however, that they were very friendly with a couple from our church, and that the wife in that couple was madly in love with my Dad. I discovered this in my late teens when I caught her kissing my father wildly at a New Year's Eve Party behind the bar -- in OUR basement rec-room. It had just turned midnight, and, and everybody was kissing everybody else, -- but not like THAT.

I remember being shocked. I mentioned it to my mother several years later, and she said she knew that Dorothy was crazy about Daddy, and that Dorothy's HUSBAND, Fred, had even made a mad proposal to my mother that they might SWITCH partners as a way of working out all the tension.

Mother reassured me that both she AND my father rejected the idea resoundingly. Astonishingly, however, they continued to be friends with Dorothy and Fred who were part of a larger group of married church couples who palled around together.

Dorothy and Fred never had children. Maybe that had something to do with i, and maybe it didn't, I'll never know. Anyway, they all worked it out as I believe adults should. No one got hysterical. No one threatened divorce. No one acted spitefully. No one ever talked about it at all. They just went on with their lives.

I think my parents were unusually wise and perceptive people, and possibly more sophisticated than many of their generation, because they had been raised in New York City and were exposed to many and varied influences all their life. They were also very much in love with each other. That certainly helped. Many married couples never have really loved each other, and live as they do in sterile, joyless relationships only because they think society demands it of them. I find that very sad.

Apparently, if we are to believe Kinsey and he other sex researchers who followed in his wake, this kind of thing (wife swapping and such) was very common, even back in the good old days.

Today, of course, everything has gone to hell on jet skis and society appears to be totally out of control.

HOWEVER, I believe there is no such thing as any kind of universal "Normal." "Normal" is whatever happens to be in vogue -- or in force -- in any given society at a given time. It has always varied immensely from culture to culture and from age to age.

The Christian Ideal may be beautiful, but it is anything natural -- except for certain individuals blest with an unusually placid, benign, well-balanced and unselfish nature.

...typically, whether one is faithful or not "consciously" depends entirely upon one's estimation of whether faithfulness' "returns" outweigh its' "costs".

...only some of us are stubborn enough not to care. For the law's "Oedipal" barriers have been crossed, and the law habitually inculcated into our unconscious. We have been "Oedipally blinded" and act faithfully, w/o ever consciously "weighing" the opportunities which may present themselves for transgressive behaviour.

.......that amazing feeling of having done the right thing though tempted.

...and the "source" of that feeling is the "surplus" enjoyment derived from "prohibition"...

...just ask "The Barber of Seville"...

In contrast to this transgressive notion of desire, the Miser invests with desire (and thus with an excessive quality) moderation itself: do not spend, economize, retain instead of letting go - all the proverbial "anal" qualities. And it is only THIS desire, the very anti-desire, that is desire par excellence. The use of the Hegelian notion of "oppositional determination [gegensätzliche Bestimmung]" (5) is here fully justified: Marx claimed that, in the series production-distribution-exchange-consumption, the term "production" is doubly inscribed, it is simultaneously one of the terms in the series and the structuring principle of the entire series: in production as one of the terms of the series, production (as the structuring principle) "encounters itself in its oppositional determination," (6) as Marx put it, using the precise Hegelian term. And the same goes for desire: there are different species of desire (i.e., of the excessive attachment that undermines the pleasure principle); among these species, desire "as such" encounters itself in its "oppositional determination" in the guise of the miser and its thrift, the very opposite of the transgressive move of desire. Lacan made this clear apropos of Molière:

The object of fantasy, image and pathos, is that other element that takes the place of what the subject is symbolically deprived of. Thus the imaginary object is in a position to condense in itself the virtues or the dimension of being and to become that veritable delusion of being [leurre de l'être] that Simone Weil treats when she focuses on the very dense and most opaque relationship of a man to the object of his desire: the relationship of Molière's Miser to his strongbox. This is the culmination of the fetish character of the object in human desire. [...] The opaque character of the object a in the imaginary fantasy determines it in its most pronounced forms as the pole of perverse desire. (7)

So, if we want to discern the mystery of desire, we should not focus on the lover or murderer in the thrall of their passion, ready to put at stake anything and everything for it, but on the miser's attitude towards his chest, the secret place where he keeps and gathers his possessions. The mystery, of course, is that, in the figure of the miser, excess coincides with lack, power with impotence, avaricious hoarding with the elevation of the object into the prohibited/untouchable Thing one can only observe, never fully enjoy. Is not the ultimate miser's aria Bartolo's "A un dottor della mia sorte" from Act I of Rossini's Il barbiere di Siviglia? Its obsessive madness perfectly renders the fact that he is totally indifferent towards the prospect of having sex with the young Rosina - he wants to marry her in order to possess and guard her in the same way a miser possesses his strongbox. (8) In more philosophical terms, the paradox of the miser is that he unites the two incompatible ethical tradition: the Aristotelian ethics of moderation and the Kantian ethics of an unconditional demand that derails the "pleasure principle" - the miser elevates the maxim of moderation itself into a Kantian unconditional demand. The very sticking to the rule of moderation, the very avoiding of the excess, thus generates an excess - a surplus-enjoyment - of its own. Slavoj Zizek, "From the Myth to Agape"

The difference between male and female fidelity (from the conclusion of the essay posted in the link above):

While men sacrifice themselves for a Thing (country, freedom, honor), only women are able to sacrifice themselves for nothing. (Or: men are moral, while only women are properly ethical.) And it is our contention that this "empty" sacrifice is the Christian gesture par excellence: it is only against the background of this empty gesture that one can begin to appreciate the uniqueness of the figure of Christ.

I disagree with the infidelity thing and "people"; I know FAR many more men who've strayed than women. FAR more.

And yes, I KNOW women stray, too...no need to reiterate that.

I know that many in my parents' circle had crushes on my folks..they were smart, good and beautiful (she still is) and as I grew, I saw the occasional looks cast at both my parents as a kind of longing....I believe this was less to have sex than it was "I wish my spouse was that marvelous and treated ME the way he/she does him/her". I know that.I used to even hear "Why can't you be like T...?"

I think Rock's quote works better for men because women still like a little 'love' with their sex. That's why I believe he used only MEN in his quote... Given the 'option,' I think more men might give in to an experience they never thought would happen when they woke up that morning, with someone they might not have even known!, than women.

Again, don't get me wrong; I KNOW married women play around a lot more than some people think.But, I think there's a difference in the playing.

Women today are just as apt to be promiscuous, unwilling to commit and to postpone taking on the responsibilities of marriage and children indefinitely as men have generally been thought to be.

Indeed. THAT is what it means to be "post"-modern. The injunction to "Enjoy" is ALL around us. And, of course, in order to "enjoy" properly/ethically... we must also be presented with a choice of enjoyments. Choose wisely, grasshopper. For one thing is a certainty, that the moment you "get" what you desire, you may likely no longer desire it (ala "buyers remorse"). So perhaps if you "foresake all others", you can "preserve" a quantity of "desire" for the love you currently have. ;)

Imp, exactly what a lot of men feel. Except, not really 'richer', is he.

I always wonder about a man who can play around on the wife who's given him children, washes his clothes, makes his dinner...treats him well. IF she treats him well :-)... If I were a man in that situation, the guilt would absolutely DO ME IN; if I had a shred of respect and affection for her.

Mr. Pris and I were always faithful to each other. If your spouse feels special to you, be sure to keep it that way. It overcomes difficult times, and most of all your spouse who loves you, wouldn't want to lose that special feeling. It is a Godsend.

Well, I hit publish early on that one, but there's a reason that site thrives.I wonder what their mix is.A lot of men cheat. Obviously.My first wife cheated on me.I got Scherie.I win.I had a beautiful woman come on to me while out of town on business.Agressively.Must have been blind.But I've got something with my wife that I never want to endanger.

i do think some men feel that way..maybe ALL men, but I think that fidelity thing is more than just wanting the comfortable home life they'd rather not jeopardize; I like to think they feel "That woman is MINE and she loves ME and we share a history and ...etc." and that's what keeps him there. A kind of love that outweighs all the cheap stuff.???Maybe I'm naive.

Pris was married for more than 50 years to a great guy and they shared a 'oneness' not many do. THAT is the great love that two people share who'd NEVER hurt the other...that's big point; not to hurt the other.

Pure honesty here ladies. Seriously.But it is in the abstract. I will say, I've never cheated on a girlfriend let alone a wife.

But there is a skit I saw Chris Rock do where he's talking about being with his wife and Her girl friend at a restaurant and when his wife goes to freshen up, he wants to jump across the table and be with the other woman (assuming she is attractive).

That's a fact. It just wouldn't work in reality, but it's always there. Men are adventure and conquest, plain and simple.

by: William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)The island dreams under the dawn And great boughs drop tranquillity;

The peahens dance on a smooth lawn, A parrot sways upon a tree, Raging at his own image in the enamelled sea.

Here we will moor our lonely ship And wander ever with woven hands, Murmuring softly lip to lip, Along the grass, along the sands, Murmuring how far away are the unquiet lands: How we alone of mortals are Hid under quiet boughs apart, While our love grows an Indian star, A meteor of the burning heart, One with the tide that gleams, the wings that gleam and dart, The heavy boughs, the burnished dove That moans and sighs a hundred days: How when we die our shades will rove, When eve has hushed the feathered ways, With vapoury footsole by the water's drowsy blaze.

'YOUR eyes that once were never weary of mineAre bowed in sotrow under pendulous lids,Because our love is waning.'And then She:'Although our love is waning, let us standBy the lone border of the lake once more,Together in that hour of gentlenessWhen the poor tired child, passion, falls asleep.How far away the stars seem, and how farIs our first kiss, and ah, how old my heart!'Pensive they paced along the faded leaves,While slowly he whose hand held hers replied:'Passion has often worn our wandering hearts.'The woods were round them, and the yellow leavesFell like faint meteors in the gloom, and onceA rabbit old and lame limped down the path;Autumn was over him: and now they stoodOn the lone border of the lake once more:Turning, he saw that she had thrust dead leavesGathered in silence, dewy as her eyes,In bosom and hair.'Ah, do not mourn,' he said,'That we are tired, for other loves await us;Hate on and love through unrepining hours.Before us lies eternity; our soulsAre love, and a continual farewell.'

Our society also portrays man this not only horny uncontrollable animals but as dumb. Just watch home improvement or any other show we can't seem to do anything right. With the exception of fathers day and even in church most often times the sermon is about how far a man fall short, it can be difficult to counter these stereotypes.

Elbro, if my marriage is an accurate sample of male / female relationship, I will say that men are every bit as deep-feeling as women. I believe we all have base instincts, but our upbringing and personality determine how we behave. I also believe that every person has the capacity to do things they can't imagine, good and evil.

I appreciate your wanting to be seen as an individual. And I think we objectify men (dumb ape, whoremonger) everyday.

I wonder if it's even possible to not objectify one another (collectively)? I suppose it's up to each person.

As for being capable of good and evil....absolutely...we are born with this fallen nature. I'm not suggesting men aren't pigs merely that there are degrees to which that nature may have been tramsformed and that is where we must treat people as individuals.

I agree. I heard someone say Loves beauty lies in its longevity. Equating sex with love then would have the opposite effect, the aesthete will always despair....they will merely seek the next pleasure. Therefore theyre not in control of their life.

EB "Its said that a man who loves many women loves none of them but a man who loves one loves them all."

I have to take issue with this.

1.) No one could possibly love all women. All women are not attractive form any field of view - Mentally or Physically

2.) You say you love your wife to the 100% level. If you hadn't met her or if she passes too soon, are you claiming that you wouldn't have found another to love just as much or won't ever find another to love just as much? I disagree.

Elmers Brother, commercials portray men as knuckledragging idiots because it serves to break up the family unit. All part of the communist agenda that stared in the 60's with LBJ, and culminated in paying to pop kids out like pieces of toast and women's lib, multi-culturalism, victimization, PC-ness, etc.

1.) No one could possibly love all women. All women are not attractive form any field of view - Mentally or Physically

1. It doesn't read ALL women it says 'many'. I'll leave it to you to determine many.

2.) You say you love your wife to the 100% level. If you hadn't met her or if she passes too soon, are you claiming that you wouldn't have found another to love just as much or won't ever find another to love just as much?

I'm saying that if you hadn't met "Susan" in "Gary, Indiana", are you saying you don't believe you would have met another woman you love and would be committed to just as much?

I'm saying you would have.I'm saying there are thousands of women in this world of 6.5 billion people, split it at 3.25 billion women opposed to men, that any of us men Could fall in love with, be committed to and take til the death do us part pledge.

If you're talking about My comments, and I didn't think you were, I thought you were talking about Chris Rock, then I must point out that you must of missed the part about my comment being in the abstract.

Kid said...Elmers Brother, commercials portray men as knuckledragging idiots because it serves to break up the family unit. All part of the communist agenda that stared in the 60's with LBJ, and culminated in paying to pop kids out like pieces of toast and women's lib, multi-culturalism, victimization, PC-ness, etc.----------

I have to laugh at this. What do you consider America's "Golden Age"? When was there a better time to live?

I'm not being sarcastic, just curious.

The defeatist attitude among conservatives is worthless and a waste of time.

And I didn't glean from Elbro's comments that there is only one suitable mate per person. :)

my comment "till death do us part"...is suggesting to you that my faithfulness to my wife will have been fulfilled at that point, so of course I would feel free to love again. However, that's not the point of the quote...comprende?

I'm saying there are thousands of women in this world of 6.5 billion people, split it at 3.25 billion women opposed to men, that any of us men Could fall in love with, be committed to and take til the death do us part pledge.

America's Golden age. I've actually been thinking about his lately so it's very opportune that you ask.

I'd say that i modern times defined as post Indian and Civil wars, that the golden years were the Roaring 20's and the 50's and 60's.

Many folks will attest to this so I won't add the testaments.

The roaring 20's were post WWI and the 50's and 60's were immediately post WWII.

Admittedly there are lots of factors one could attribute to both of those eras, but what has been occurring to me was that post WWI and WWII, there was a low population of productive males in American society. Given this, the government was in a position (think employees vs employers market) to give as much leeway to the employees as possible because there was much to be done and a lot of revenue to be collected. Hence the Feds got the hell out of the way of American business as well as individuals and allowed capitalism to 'do it's thing' and produce, produce, produce, with as many people working and contributing to the GDP and tax revenue as was humanly possible.

Said simply, government got the hell out of the way, left us alone and the media concentrated on the American Dream and the American Successes.

I'll leave it at that but could add more if you like for clarification. Today's America is reverse of the Successful Patriotic, Individual Liberty and Freedoms America of the Roaring 20s and the 50's and 60's.

Realize that every possible group of individuals is now opposed to each other with the government raping the country for every possible angle and few realizing it.

Each of us has been assigned a label and many of us are willing to do violence to many of the people who don't share our label. Tomorrows leaders are ready to carry this concept into the future at warp speed.

What is accepted by the current generation is embraced by the next generation. Can you imagine what's going on today being embraced by tomorrows leaders?

Good God.

Life in America pretty much sucks today and talking and voting are useless to altering course.

EB, OK. Got ya. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but my perspective still doesn't fit in completely with the words you are typing :)

- I can emotionally Love many women and still provide commitment to one.- In other circumstances - catastrophes - I could provide ALL to many women if the women to men ratio was say 10 women to 1 man and commit to more than 1. This goes on today in quite healthy environments though not to a large degree.

I believe the family unit is the most important thing for nurturing a healthy growing civilization.

As someone who grew up on the "High Plains" in Texas, I think that the complete freedom to produce, produce, produce led to farmers over-working the land (in blind greed), which contributed greatly to the Dust Bowl. That, coupled with unbridled greed on Wall Street, pretty much set the scene for misery.

Kid you misunderstand....when I said like your sister I meant the emotional love you have for your sister...it wasn't am insult ...it was a question...do you mean the emotional love like you have for your sister?

No whistling here. I teach my children my values, and that includes personal responsibility.

But really, I feel disgusted when conservatives bemoan the state of our nation. It's just pathetic and it plays to the paranoid, catastrophizing caricature that leftists love to mock. I can honestly see how young people would see that and run the other way. Who wants to play on a losing team of sad sacks??

Maybe this would describe it best. I LOVE women I've left behind. I'm committed to the one I'm with now.?

As far as Catastrophe. Have you seen the movie Dr Strangelove ?Near the end when it is assumed the entire world will be destroyed by nuclear explosion, Dr Strangelove suggests that some number of Americans retreat to deep mineshafts, and to assure the survival of patriotic Americans, each male, selected by computer for genetic background and intelligence will be assigned 10 females of sufficient attractiveness so as to produce as many productive American children as possible while the radioactivity dissipates to the point that they can once again move back above ground.

- the entire media is a propaganda whore that works for the democrat party.- the democrat party are evil beyond belief. the repubs are useless and are currently moving into the evil category themselves.

The guy in the white house is a racist, anti-American, military hating, capitalism hating, muslim activist from Freakin KENYA and 50% + of the country not only doesn't give a shit, but actually supports it.Hey, if you want to go through life with a coke and a smile thinking everything is cool. 1.) I can't blame you because you can't do anything about it. and 2.) You're in denial. As long as you know that, then whatever works for you.A smart man once said "See both sides. Always see both sides. You may not agree with the other side, but if you don't understand the other side, you are doing yourself a disservice". I couldn't agree more.

I've shut down a lot of the 'news' myself. I can't do anything about it, and if I let it get to me to the point of making me negative then 'they've' gotten me twice. That's not gonna happen.

I'm going to have a good time and deal with what gets in my face, or knocks on my door as necessary.

I'll say it again:But really, I feel disgusted when conservatives bemoan the state of our nation. It's just pathetic and it plays to the paranoid, catastrophizing caricature that leftists love to mock. I can honestly see how young people would see that and run the other way.

Kid, I mean no harm. I would LOVE to see a conservative base with an optimistic attitude, determined to make positive change.

I hadn't seen these comments before I closed down for a week. Kid emailed and mentioned your exchanges, so I thought I'd come look;

WOW.

I will quickly say:

Kid and Elbro:I do think men are more promiscuous and more eager to just 'do it' than 'MOST' women are. And I think more and more women are getting to the male stage of "any port in a storm," sadly. And I think that's a terrible, terrible state of affairs and will only take American culture down faster than it already has gone down.Double standard? you bet.

Jen, how can ANYBODY not bemoan the state of our country today? Liberals have done that too, particularly during Bush; CONSTANTLY, in fact.Our country is going so far downhill SO fast, that it's hard to not recognize that.Are we not to mention it because we'll turn kids off?

Kid, I am a Republican who's worth a damn, no? I don't like to associate with the R's much, but in contrast to the D's, I am an R!

"Freedom is never more than one generation away fromextinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must befought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day wewill spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children whatit was once like in the United States where men werefree." -- Ronald Reagan

remember

Andrew Breitbart...American Hero

Mac 'n GeeeZis my food blog...enjoy! Sorry I haven't added to it in a long while.

President Obama has done such a horrible job with the economy and foreign policy that now Kenyans are accusing him of being born in the United States :-)

important reminders:

We are surrounded by IDIOTS...Mr. Z

“Barack Obama's political genius is his ability to say things that will sound good to people who have not followed the issues in any detail —regardless of how obviously fraudulent what he says may be to those who have. Shameless effrontery can be a huge political asset, especially if uninformed voters outnumber those who are informed.” Thomas Sowell.........AMENTolerance is the last virtue of a dying society. (doesn't matter who wrote it, it's true and it's here)

The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.... Peter Brimelow

The difference between golf and government is that in golf you can't improve your lie. ~George Deukmejian

Rules of Engagement

I have the greatest readers/commenters on the planet, and I encourage all to engage with us all and enjoy! I ask for respect for them as well as for myself. No gratuitous profanity. Friends can get away with more than people who insult me or my readers, and will, trust me.You will be deleted for whatever I find delete-provoking. It's my house.No Christianity or Judaism bashingEnlighten, complain, or challenge, but keep it succinct. And please don't whine if you don't follow the rules and you're deleted. Thanks!I advise all patrons that they are individually responsible for unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature posted through respective ISPs.

I hereby advise all readers against transmitting via comments, or links to other sites, any material that may constitute criminal behavior, or give rise to civil liability, including (but not limited to) violation of local or state laws, United States Code or regulation, or any international statute to which the United States is a signatory.